Talk:Andrei Pleșu

Incomprehensible phrase
"&hellip;he assits in the 1980s along with Gabriel Liiceanu at Constantin Noica's seminaries in Păltiniş." "Assits"? Perhaps attended (a asistat)? But I still can't parse this. "Seminaries" are places you study to become a member of the clergy. Perhaps "seminars"? So perhaps "in the 1980s, along with Gabriel Liiceanu, he attended Constantin Noica's seminars in Păltiniş." Could someone please confirm whether that is what they meant to write? -- Jmabel | Talk 09:52, 7 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Never mind, I looked at the original Romanian and, yes, my guesses were correct. -- Jmabel | Talk 10:07, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

More strangeness
I don't understand why the paragraph about having supper with Băsescu is of encyclopedic importance. And I can't make head or tail of "Andrei Pleşu never denied his reconciliation with Traian Băsescu." What odd wording. Why would he be expected to deny it? Obviously something unstated is going on here, but I have no idea what. - Jmabel | Talk 06:33, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I started a discussion about the encyclopedic character of Dinescu's statement at Discutie Andrei Plesu (Romanian Wikipedia)Dl.goe 13:03, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not about to comment on it, either here or there. I have clicked the link, and noticed what the last sentence wanted to say: with or wothout the preceeeding statement by Dinescu, the last line made absolutely no sense - now I see its point, and it strikes me as just plain wrong (of the "if he does not deny it, he agrees with it" type). I don't know if the article could do without Dinescu's theories, but it can and should do without that sentence. Dahn 13:14, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Did Pleşu participate in the Romanian Revolution?
He is included in the category "People of the Romanian Revolution of 1989". However, I am not aware of any significant participation of Pleşu at the revolution. The fact that he was part of Petre Roman's government is not enough to make him a participant at the revolution. If nobody will provide sources regarding Pleşu's involvement in the revolution I will remove this category.--MariusM 20:16, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I personally don't think he need be included, but I want to clarify that the category should not be about "participants" in the revolution. It should be about people whose activities were connected with the revolution. I do believe that members of the Roman cabinet can fit into that definition. This is the principle behind any such category, because they should serve to reunite articles that are relevant to an issue and can help the reader have quick access to a who was who. I note that the rowiki equivalent is for "participants", but that simply has no bearing on this category - which, I have to point out, is named "People of".
 * I remember these issues coming up in a discussion I had with Turgidson, who started the category and filled it. He was concerned about these issues, and decided to go by the broadest definition of the terms involved. I agreed: not necessarily on a case-by-case basis, but because I knew that a broader term is preferable to a narrower term, just as NPOV is preferable to POV. Dahn 20:47, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * We have other categories, like Category:Romanian dissidents, which should be used for such cases. The revolution made many changes in the life of many Romanians, we should not include all people which had changes in their life as result of the revolution in the category "People of Romanian Revolution". Members of first Roman cabinet are not necesarly "people of the Romanian revolution" if they didn't have significant role in the revolution. The image of Roman cabinet as a government made by those who made the revolution is POV, even if some members of this cabinet had some roles in the revolution (to be clarified on which side). Pleşu was in Tescani, he was just an inocent guy, probabily proposed in powerless position of culture minister by Dinescu. The "Meditaţia Transcedentală" affair, where Pleşu was involved, was not significant for the revolution.--MariusM 22:28, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't see how the "dissidents" category is supposed to supplant that one, and I do see how it would be relevant to include all members of the Roman cabinet (and no, I don't want to pass judgment on who was wasn't powerful, since that is beside the point). Dahn 22:35, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Let me try to say a couple of words about this. As Dahn says, I grappled with these issues at some point, and the two of us tried to come up with some reasonable standards on who to include in Category:People of the Romanian Revolution of 1989.  I agree, it's not an easy task, and the criteria are not clear-cut, especially to someone like me, who is really an outsider.  Having said that, maybe it helps a bit having an outside perspective, and, from that point of view, I can say I heard of Andrei Pleşu for the first time right after the 1989 Revolution, when he became a minister in the Roman cabinet.  Now, that tends to associate him with the Revolution, at least in my mind; I agree, such a link is somewhat tenuous, but still, it provides a rather tangible connection.  Moreover, I agree with Dahn that Category:Romanian dissidents does not supplant this one — the two categories have some obvious elements in common, but neither is included in the other (I'd say, their symmetric difference is quite significant).  At any rate, all in all I'd tend to support keeping Pleşu in the "1989" category, though if there is strong opinion to the contrary, I'd go along with it, since I don't really have a strong, objective argument in favor, but more of a feeling that it would be better to err on the side of inclusiveness in such a case.  Turgidson 10:33, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The definition used by Dahn regarding this category ("people whose activities were connected with the revolution") is vague. Some can consider even Mikhail Gorbachev's or Lech Walesa's activities connected with the Romanian revolution, as the example of the actions of those two guys had a role in the encouragement or Romanian people to revolt. Also, any of the authors listed in the List of books about the Romanian Revolution of 1989 can be included in this category, if we are using Dahn's definition. My opinion is to keep in this category only people who participate in the revolution, regardless on which side. This is in line with the usage established in Romanian Wikipedia, where is also an explanatory note (written by me :-) ) on the similar category ("Această categorie include persoanele notabile care au participat la revoluţia română din decembrie 1989, indiferent de care parte a baricadei au fost. Nu include istorici sau ziarişti care au scris despre revoluţia din 1989, dacă n-au participat efectiv la ea"). There are a lot of people who can be included in this category based on the narrow definition (see also Romanian Wikipedia), we don't need to use a broad definition to populate the category.--MariusM 21:43, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I copied this discussion on Category talk:People of the Romanian Revolution of 1989 as this disscussion is not only about Pleşu. I propose to continue the discussion on that place.--MariusM 21:49, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Dahn, if it isn't written in the two romanian newspapers that you read it means its nonsense?
The letters do exist, they are published in the media, Andrei Plesu never tried to contest them in the court of law as fakes and the news is quite old actually. So how come it's nonsense? You have to face it as the democratic idols of Romania were quite red and also have collaborated with Securitate to keep their warm places before the Revolution. 90.5.212.112 (talk) 19:44, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
 * What you introduced was unsourced, weasel-worded, and POVed. The "reference" to Pacepa failed WP:SYNTH and squeezed in a personal interpretation, produced on the basis of a fallacy and the personal viewpoint you outline above. It also implied that Pleşu was wrong for wanting to continue to gain a salary (i.e. earn a living). Pleşu's own explanation of the events is available for reading, and I have not met anyone other than the gutter press making a case out of this. If the info is to be introduced, it needs to be sourced with reliable sources, present all points of view, and drop all misleading and inflammatory conclusions you drew there (and here). Aside from the atrocious English of your edit, it was also revertible for breaking with WP:BLP, which this project takes very seriously. So, yes, it was nonsense. In the future, please refrain from making disruptive edits, or you may be blocked from editing wikipedia. Dahn (talk) 00:30, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Hmm... since when do you care about sources? I remeber seeing you cutting off quotes from the press because it wasn't on your favourite side. Also, you cut off a quote of mine from the Romanian National Television. It seems that quotes are the last thing on your list.
 * The refference to Pacepa is less accepted based on what?
 * It is nothing wrong with Plesu wanting to have a wage, yet it shows his willingness to please the Communist regime to get back more than just a monthly income as western scholaships weren't for everybody to take. Linked with the fact explained by Pacepa he also did Political Policing which is not so good according to his implied political profile from nowadays.
 * You are calling names the Romanian press that you dislike, yet Plesu never contested those affirmations in a Court of Justice.
 * Who gives you the authority to decide which part of the published press is reliable beyond a Court of Justice?
 * Thank you for your appreciations of my English. As wikipedia is an open project you are welcome to polish it in order to improve the quality of the article instead of holding a fake image of a political leader. 90.5.177.221 04:07, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The Pacepa reference is not actually a reference, since it did not indicate where it came from (WP:CITE), just a claim that one would find the allegation in Pacepa. From the way it was worded, it does not seem to make a reference to Pleşu himself, but some generic statement that you took the liberty of interpreting in this case (WP:SYNTH for a second look, since you don't seem to have pondered its implications). Even if included, such allegation will still be an allegation, and will need to presented as such, and not as part of his biography - since it is not a fact, but a claim.
 * I don't care what you claim the letter shows, I only care about reliable published sources have to say. You will find details on what is and isn't a reliable source outlined in WP:RS.
 * The rest of your argument about what "he did and didn't do", especially since you place it relation with your interpretations, is a red herring.
 * As for other articles: I reverted material that went against the WP:MOS. in the case of the Romanian television reference, I objected not to the info itself, but to the way in which it was presented - if it declares itself "a less-known fact", then it is trivia, and trivia does not make into articles.
 * I hope I make myself understood. Dahn 04:27, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh and: i do not allow you to make speculations about what press I read and do not read, thus making it seem like I have a bias when I remove unsourced claims of the most inflammatory nature. Dahn 04:29, 1 December 2007 (UTC)